Heavenly Kosmos

[Morkel Erasmus]

I don't know if my Northern Hemisphere brethren/sisters are familiar with these flowers.

They are called 'kosmos' in South Africa and bloom (as a weed) throughout the plateau and highlands of the country, albeit sparsely for most of the year. However, after the heaviest summer rains the dormant seeds come out en masse and envelop the otherwise dull grasslands of the region.

Here is a photo taken in first morning light with the sun behind me as it struck the delicate white, pink and purple blossoms of these flowers.

Your comments are appreciated, as always...:)

Canon 1000D with 18-55mm IS @ 24mm
f14 @ 1/30 SS @ ISO 200, EXP -2, tripod.

[Arthur Morris]

Loverly light and flowers with a nice basic image design. You've got to start looking at the edges of the frame... You've clipped a bunch of the foreground flowers bottom and side and look what you did to the top!

[Rene Quenneville]

Wow Morkel,

Great light! Well exposed. You captured well the scene. I also support Artie's point.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I think the composition can be severely refined.

I have cosmos in my garden in southern California!

[Morkel Erasmus]

thanks guys. this was shot before I knew anything significant about landscape composition, I basically posted to share the colours and to find out if they grow outside of South Africa as well :) and knew that someone would mention the framing hehe

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Morkel,
I'm with Jeffrey on this one.....although Artie is correct.....you can clean this one up rather easily. Crop off the top darker area just into the flowers and the brightest grass stalk on the left. any remaining edges of protruding flowers would have to be cloned/patched......as in the field with that many flowers quite likely would have been impossible to get a clean edge. Relatively easy fix and worth exploring just to clean up a lovely scene. I too have had them in my garden in NJ and the plant them all along the highways as wildflower meadows.

[Morkel Erasmus]

thanks for the advice Roman - I will attempt the 'clean-up' :)
it was quite a mission to get a clean comp since I had to stake out next to a busy road and beyond it is private property.

[Mitchell Krog]

Definitely worth the "clean up", very nice photo Morkel.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Morkel,
I'm with Jeffrey on this one.....although Artie is correct.....you can clean this one up rather easily. Crop off the top darker area just into the flowers and the brightest grass stalk on the left. any remaining edges of protruding flowers would have to be cloned/patched......as in the field with that many flowers quite likely would have been impossible to get a clean edge. Relatively easy fix and worth exploring just to clean up a lovely scene. I too have had them in my garden in NJ and the plant them all along the highways as wildflower meadows.

Mork was certainly careless with the framing on the right side of the image and had lots of room on the left to work with. And I would much rather have the distant field of flowers all within the frame. As you know, I have no problem at all with edge clean-up, I was just stating that it is best to take care with the framing in the field to make that job easier.

[Arthur Morris]

it was quite a mission to get a clean comp since I had to stake out next to a busy road and beyond it is private property.

Nice try Mork but I cannot let you sneak that one by me. You were in position with your gear and you were careless. You had a zoom lens. All that you had to do was zoom out a fraction and point the camera about six inches to the right. I liked your first excuse much better: "This was shot before I knew anything significant about landscape composition." :) :D :)

[Morkel Erasmus]

hehe Artie - okay I'll STOP making excuses and come this next summer I'll make sure I get the shot in the field. :)

BTW the first excuse is more true than the 2nd excuse. ;)

and I agree - getting it right there and then is what it's about. in the old days there was no 'photoshop' to do this after the fact (if you wanted to it certainly was even more of an effort).

thanks for the comments everyone, I am learning a lot - even from just reading suggestions/crits of other peoples' photos.

[Arthur Morris]

BTW the first excuse is more true than the 2nd excuse. ;)

I knew that. That's why I busted you!

[Morkel Erasmus]

:)

thanks for keeping me on my toes Artie. as I said, I'm learning a lot...

[Roman Kurywczak]

Mork was certainly careless with the framing on the right side of the image and had lots of room on the left to work with. And I would much rather have the distant field of flowers all within the frame. As you know, I have no problem at all with edge clean-up, I was just stating that it is best to take care with the framing in the field to make that job easier.
You are correct! I should have said.....I agree with Jeffrey and especially Artie! Artie in the field (I always recommend getting it right there) and Jeffrey on the PP'ing!

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Man, you are a toughie Artie!

I like the image and a lesson we can all learn Morkel. Well done mate. I am not game to post ANYTHING here. I'll be ripped to shreds. :D

[Arthur Morris]

Man, you are a toughie Artie! I like the image and a lesson we can all learn Morkel. Well done mate. I am not game to post ANYTHING here. I'll be ripped to shreds. :D

I am actually a pussycat. I critique each image as if it were my own. If you don't post, you don't learn.

[Robert Amoruso]

Morkel,

One of the best things you can do when making an image is not settle for the first one you make as many times a better composition exists a few steps away. I would suggest here that walking up to the thicker bunches of flowers in the background would have gotten you a much needed stronger foreground.

You might want to check out Tony Sweet's photography - he is very much an expert at this kind of photography just to see how he frames these images and uses selective focus in them.

[Morkel Erasmus]

thanks Robert I will check it out...

[Brandy Katzen]

I like this photo a lot just as it is. The area to the right bottom where the cosmos are, forms approximately a triangle. The area left of a that, where the grasses are, is a perfectly interlocking inverted triangle. The field of flowers at the top "crowns" the whole thing with a rectangular shape. A perfect visual balance. The distant fields at the top edge give a hint of distance, without making the distance TOO important; yet without that hint of distance the composition would become too static. I don't think this is sloppy composition; I think it's actually quite astute, though it may have happened subconsciously. You're all trying to reduce this to a static picture of a bunch of cosmos, when I see it quite naturally as a dynamic picture of a whole mood. Perhaps Morkel did as well.

[Roman Kurywczak]

...... ...The distant fields at the top edge give a hint of distance, without making the distance TOO important; yet without that hint of distance the composition would become too static. ...
Hi Brandy,
So you are saying that a 1/8 sliver of distant field......clipped in some areas by the field of flowers......isn't sloppy and gives a sense of distance? Being that small in the frame and broken up, exactly how do I, the viewer, know that the field continues or is in fact even a field? How does the stray grass on the left edge add to the scene?
I am always curious how others interpret a scene and helps me look at things differently also.

[Morkel Erasmus]

I see it's heating up...
I would be the first to concede that this isn't the best composition - and the reason I posted it was to get advice for improving such a scene should I stumble upon it in future. Interesting to see how people experience this...:)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Morkel,
No heat.....more curiosity, just like you. I too find it interesting how people see/interpret an image. I value other opinions and I just want a bit more clarification for my own personal growth. I find that sometimes we (including myself)......get too attached to a moment and can't judge clearly. I will stick to my original assesment and feel the image would be stronger without those elements and if we disagree.....I am OK with that too! I'm glad you got some advice you feel you can use in the field in the future.
PS really like the saying at the the end!

[Brandy Katzen]

Roman,

The best answer that I can give you, is that, without reading anyone's comments, that sliver at the top gave me a feeling of something in the distance; something mysterious that intrigued me. After reading the comments, I tried cropping that sliver off, and the whole thing changed; it lost that dynamism. Then I tried to imagine the sliver a bit wider, and it seemed then that it would be too important....as if holding my attention for much too long. That little sliver makes me glance up and out for just a second... but not long enough to lose the flowers. I like that. I don't like images that keep me fixated on one limited thing/"subject". I like photos that make my eyes move.

As for how are you are to know that the field continues.........that the whole point, Roman! You don't know. Does it, or doesn't it? It's that sense of intrigue about what MIGHT be there that I like. For me, images aren't just images; they are little stories...I don't mean to say that I make up nonsensical "plots"....it's about how the image takes my eyes around, and what that movement does in my imagination. I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but I'm trying because I'm glad that you asked.

I guess some people prefer to be clear about what they are looking at, while others like to have some blanks to fill in. Perhaps analogous to how some people like to speak in metaphors, which others like to say directly what they mean (or perhaps more correctly, how some people get aggravated when others speak in metaphors, yet others become engaged by it)!.

And a question to you Roman....I often see paintings in art galleries where it seems as if the artist has almost willy-nilly chopped off the edges of various things in the scene, as if the idea was to sort of snap-shot a small vignette. Why is this apparently OK in painting, yet photographers get trounced when they do it? And more importantly, why have I found that painters have no problem with this sort of composition in photography...it's more the photographers THEMSELVES that have a problem with it? This is a question that comes up for me more and more often, yet when I ask it, I'm seen as argumentative, rather than asking what I see as a really interesting question.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Brandy,
I appreciate the well thought out response and I'll just say we will disagree here.....and that is OK!!! I relish other perspectives as long as they are as well thought out as yours and you did come across clearly. You didn't try to"justify" anything but rather presented your feelings rather eloquently....so I can't argue with that......but I do not feel the same way in this particulat image.....so we disagree on this one.

Now for your question....I did go to art school many years ago so I find your question intriguing......as a matter of fact, I once considered phtography "not an art". I have since removed myself from that debate (if you look in general phtography this was a hot topic).....as I find it about as productive as a Nikon/Canon debate.....they do tend to get argumentative so I can only offer this;

I try to view every image with fresh eyes and without bias but I always ask the same question; Are the presented elements necessary to the image? As an artist, I can tell you that nothing in a painting or drawing was accidental or willy nilly(love that).....but quite the opposite.....carefully thought out and placed in the frame with purpose....so I apply the same principals to phtography.......does the protrusion add or detract from the image? Why is it there? Often times I see things protrude into an image that for me, don't add to the scene....so why are they there? That is how I base my critiques but as you can see, this is where personal preferences does come to play. I personally feel critiques are just suggestions and never the final word.......exploring them, even if they are contrary to what we feel, will only help us grow as Artists/Photographers.

I hope I answered your question and given some insight into my thoughts.

[Brandy Katzen]

Roman,

Thank you for taking the time to listen and answer. I have no expectation that everyone will respond to a given image in the same way. I guess what I sometimes have a problem with is that it seems so often that what passes for critiques, are really nothing more than attempts to change the image so that it fits a certain mold, rather than a dialog with the artist as to what his/her thoughts were, and if the suggested changes would actually further the artists intentions rather than change the piece into something else entirely. Hope that makes sense.